Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has proclaimed that he intends to use the economic-stimulus money to pay down his state's debt instead of, you know, stimulating the economy.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford plans to ask President Obama for permission to use part of his state's stimulus money to pay down its debt, not on new spending, according to a letter he sent state legislators Tuesday.
A longtime opponent of the president's nearly $800 billion stimulus package, the Republican governor told his state's lawmakers that spending approximately $700 million in money coming from the federal government would only make the state's financial situation worse in the long term.
“[W]hen one is in a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging,” Sanford wrote in the letter obtained by CNN Tuesday.
Steve Benen outlines why this is a bizarre and counterproductive approach. Basically, the debt is a long-term problem that can be solved over time, but in the short term the economy is in free fall, and using that money to balance the state's budget can only make South Carolina's economic circumstances worse.
The question is, can Sanford actually do this? Part of what makes the stimulus bill constitutional is the states' ability to refuse the money if they so choose. In a desperate attempt to limit the effects of Sanford's ill-advised presidential campaigning crusade in the midst of an economic crisis, the state Legislature in South Carolina has passed a veto-proof concurrent resolution saying the state wants to spend the federal money the way the federal government has suggested. Jack Balkin writes that the resolution, which was part of the process for receiving the funds outlined in the stimulus bill, may not be constitutional:
The federal stimulus bill says that a concurrent resolution is all that is necessary; this provision was inserted in the bill in order to do an end run around GOP governors like Sanford who might refuse federal funds either because of political grandstanding or because of their lack of a basic understanding of economics.
I think this provision may not be constitutional. Unless you can demonstrate that under South Carolina law, the South Carolina Legislature, acting alone, speaks for the State, it would seem to me that the governor's consent is necessary.
The problem with Sanford's grandstanding however, is that if in four years his state is still suffering while the rest of the country has begun to recover, it's going to be hard for him to campaign on his responsible stewardship of the state, even if the conservative base has lionized him as a hero. But I suppose if things are going better rather than worse, it won't really matter who the Republicans nominate. So basically all this amounts to is Sanford shooting his own state in the foot for no good reason.
-- A. Serwer
